The dumbest, most ironic claim ever. (the claim has been released, but keeping this video up) The original video that was claimed • Why the Katy Perry/Fla... Adam
Big Bulk >a taste of his own medicine Oh, you mean informing the masses about a dangerous precedent that is being put into play? oh heavens no! clearly he's at fault for informing the masses that people are trying to make it so nobody can ever make music again! oh the inhumanity!
Big Bulk You seem like the type who listens to underground artists for the simple purpose of being different. It was the small artist who went after the big company and won for a stupid reason. If he gets shamed, he brought it upon himself. Little artists who aren't scummy about the way they create music aren't affected by this guy's video. Only the assholes who try to capitalize on a big companys success and earn easy money are the ones that are affected. and they deserve it.
Big Bulk Why is a total non-musician like you arguing about music in Adam’s channel? You probably didn’t even understand a droplet of his arguments in the original video lmao. If you were actually educated enough to understand his points, you wouldn’t be saying any of these bullshit. Get out of here and go listen to your redundant pop music. Didn’t anybody ever teach you to not talk about things you have no idea about?
@@doggy7210 Both the music and lyrics are in public domain in both the European Union and United States. The copyright expired in the European Union on January 1, 2017. In the United States, a federal court ruled in 2016 that Warner/Chappell's copyright claim was invalid and there was no other claim to copyright.
The most egregious part is that a human actually watched the video that was defending their company, using the music under fair use provision, decided "fuck him", picked the wrong section for copyright and still claimed it anyway. The Mens Rea behind that is so staggeringly self harming
Absolutely no chance they watched the video. It's the first appearance of (what they THOUGHT) was the Dark Horse ostinato in the video. They probably watched up to there, went "haha, gottem, easy money", then filed the claim, disregarding the rest of the video's content.
2 years late but this was highly amusing to watch unfold at the time. Its also a lesson on how dangerous the music industry is with publishing companies wuick to the trigger on filing copyright claims for songs they don't even own. There really needs to be a revision to the DMCA that allows defendents to receive double the monetary value in damages for every false filing made (and have legal fees covered). At least then content creators can get some compensation for having to deal with a publishing companies shit.
DMCA should be an innocent until proven guilty thing. Nothing happens to the offending content until the claimant can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the infringed material both belongs to them, and falls outside of fair use.
Well, now he's a felon for music theft right? So his testimony becomes invalid, proving that they don't actually own the rights to the melody, thus they can't claim the video, which makes him not a felon thereby making his testimony admissible again, which makes it claimable again, and now we're back at the first part of this sentence...
This is an example of "no good deed goes unpunished". No one expects to interrupt a burglary in progress and then be accused of robbery by the victim. Yet, there it is.
Except that implies Adams video did anything for them. Hes not saving them, he made a youtube video that no one involved is going to see or care about lol.
This is honestly a good representation of the music industry as a whole. They want money and are willing to fuck over everyone, especially the creators, to get it.
You honor, We will prove through preponderance of evidence, that this "teacher" was teaching "children" in a "classroom" the Major key of C, which we have used extensively through out our vast catalog of music, and therefor infringed upon our intellectual property rights.
They'd rather stop new music from being created than lose a single cent they might be able to earn. This proves copyright doesnt protect artistic creation anymore. I see no reason for it to exist at this point, you dont need corporations producing and distributing albums so they shouldn't be protected.
Maybe the same person worked on both cases. Ironically, by confounding both "melodies" in this instance, they simply validated their adversaries' case while trying to screw someone who was defending their case. Now that's incompetence ! Twice !
I am with you Adam. I too have had a copyright claim on one of my videos for playing a well known melody of a pop song on my guitar in the Australian bush! I don't make any money from my videos at all but once again big business will rake up even more profits from any ad revenue that might be generated. I was actually pleased that what I played was actually recognised!! My guitar playing must be improving!! What a world we now live in eh?
Warner: Your honor! Dark Horse is nothing like Joyful Noise! Also Warner: Your honor! Adams reproduction of Joyful Noise infringes on our Dark Horse copyright!
Exactly. Warner is admitting that Dark Horse is so similar to Joyful Noise that their own employee can't tell the difference. Which means either they are knowingly infringing, or they believe the similarity to be trivial.
@@slappy8941 literal sport. I'm actually surprised, weirdly Delighted, shocked, disgusted, and jealous that I'll never reach that level of shamelessness.
So to recap: Adam defends Warner-Chapel’s right to Dark Horse. Warner-Chapel loses right to Dark Horse. Warner-Chapel proceeds to stab Adam in the back, trying to claim his video for using the melody of Dark Horse, but instead cites the part where he plays Joyful Noise, the song they claim not to have stolen, even though they no longer have the legal rights to either melody.
You missed the extra part where in the lawsuit too, where they claimed that it wasnt even their melody, but instead a background sound - then claimed the video because it was the melody.
@@SethbotStar As far as i understood it, the point of the video they sued because of was not when comparing to Joysful, but to a part that was played by the video maker. They didn't failed to distinguish joyful from their song, but the play in the video to their song.
Stefan Ionescu the copyright claim was filed by the defendant WB, representing Katy Perry's Dark Horse. Flame was suing Katy Perry (WB); Adam defended Katy (WB); WB claimed Adam's video, based on the section of it where Flame's Joyful Noise played. This might as well have been used as evidence by the plaintiff.
I feel for you man, keep up the good work and don't mind these corps. Truely interesting and very straight forward content your putting out here. Ty!!!!
So.. to summarize: 1. You defended the company, they gave you a copyright claim 2. They don't even have the copyrights to the song they've claimed 3. You didn't even use their song.. .
worse: warner : It's not copying! Also Warner: HOW DO YOU EVEN DARE TO DEFEND US WITHOUT GIVING US MONEY!?! Adam: Mates, you told me to pay you for the sounds they made,not the ones you made. if you can't notice, maybe they are right...
@@gorkyd7912 Another artist said the same thing and started the lawsuit. He got a musicologist to lie on stand and say the line was truly unique in music (it isn't, similar lines are littered through music over the centuries). In reality, the line in question is such a basic musical figure that no one should be able to claim copyright over it.
I don't understand how RU-vid thinks the default should be "guilty until proven innocent". But I mean, they were bought out by Google and Google did remove their "Don't be evil" slogan...
The worst part is the claimant doesn't need to give YT any information, BUT if YOU want to appeal it, you have to give ALL your details to the claimant. It's messed up.
Thanks for sharing the feedback you got. So sad. Sometimes I'm not sure if bots are really less intelligent than people. If only people in the music business knew more about music!
Since they manually claimed it, it shows that you were specifically targeted and that they ignored the rules and laws in order to steal your money. Easy win lawsuit.
@Ceyhun ay If there is proof that warner knowingly and illegally claimed copyright on a legal video, which there does appear to be, they are in deep shit. Doesn't matter how much money they have for lawyers.
Copyright law might be, but the fact that you need deep pockets to defend yourself against others, even if you're in the right, is completely ass backwards.
Timesink I’ve looked into your account and nowhere can I find evidence that you actually work for RU-vid let alone have the authority to represent an opinion held by the entire company. Preeeeetty sure you’re just a big phony!
They lost the lawsuit. The point is, even after loosing, they now claim, that the competitors melody is inreality theirs. Shouldnt there be an extra massive retribut... fine for having lost a lawsuit and then not exactly repeating but commiting an even worse crime?
Contact Joyful's legal team and let them know Warner is trying to claim THEIR melody so they can sue them and win AGAIN!! Mayne then they'll learn their lesson. I know it goes against the whole spirit of the video in the first place but fuck them for that!
Xplora213 legally no. That’s double jeopardy. unless the legal team files it as a separate claim under different circumstances. Besides, it would look more like Joyful’s team would rather file a complaint on Warner so that they would receive the revenue rather than going through the arduous process of filing another lawsuit, much less a lawsuit with similar circumstances. But that’s just my two cents. I could be wrong tho, so if anyone could correct me on this, much appreciated.
@@epsilomtrent932: The principle of double jeopardy applies only to criminal cases, and only in some circumstances (after mistrials, criminal defendants get retried all the time, and furthermore double jeopardy does not apply to distinct federal vs. state prosecutions for the same underlying actions). This is a civil lawsuit, a.k.a. a "tort". A.k.a. "equity" as opposed to "law". There are analogues of "double jeopardy" in torts; as I understand it, they usually go under the label of various forms of "estoppel" (collateral, promissory, etc.). IANAL, TINLA, ad libitum ad nauseam.
It is just like other nations muscling into China's ancestral fishing waters. The nerve of the other nations! Do they not know that China's ancestral waters extend from their shores up to 24,000 miles?
Nothing screams Frivolous law suits more than U.S multi billion dollar companies. When they waste money the government let's them write it off on the taxes they pay instead.
Some of these music copyright claims are plain disgusting, like the one in this video. You're also absolutely right in suggesting that the RU-vid ways of settling claims (being either relying on the claimant to drop the claim themselves, with no possible further course of RU-vid recourse beyond that, or hiring lawyers and dealing with it through the courts system) is absolutely inadequate and unfair on video creators. I've had other issues with this system, albeit in relation to music identification bots automatically misidentifying performance used in a video or falsely attributing the intellectual music copyright of a public domain work to a RU-vid account/claimant who naturally doesn't own the copyright that they are claiming. While I don't make (or intend to make) any money from RU-vid videos I've had 3 erroneous music copyright claims ('strikes') that were completely unsubstantiated (2 claims of which were removed and 1 which is still in place) but who still nonetheless made copyright claims where they could not only make advertising revenue off ads displaying for those videos of mine but also were able to activate ads for those videos of mine where they otherwise wouldn't run (as both my chanel and all of its videos haven't reached anywhere near high enough numbers to automatically have ads run on them by RU-vid). The first (and very troubling) one of these that I had was for the overture from the opera The Wreckers by English composer Ethel Smyth (who wrote the song "March of the Women", that became the lead song in the English suffragettes movement in the early 20th century), a work which is 100% in the public domain word wide but yet there's some unknown account that is automatically making copyright strikes/claims on RU-vid videos who rightly freely use music from that opera because it IS I'm the public domain. The 2nd was quite amusing, as while it wasn't claiming the intellectual copyright behind the use of a composition it was a strike based on the claim that in my video was the performance recording of a professional European Orchestra (even though the music being performed was composed in the 19th century and is well and truly in the Public Domain). The performance of the music in my video was actually a live performance recording of a local Australian community group, and what was amusing for me is that when I compared the 40 odd seconds of music from my original recording (that the bot had identified as being taken from the European orchestra's recording) with the European orchestra's recording not only were the tempos obviously different for that entire section but there were 2 obvious performance errors in the original recording (and 1 different less obvious error I heard in the European recording) that weren't in the other recording during that "indentified" section 😆 There is also a 3rd erroneous (and absolutely incorrect) copyright claim that I have 'challenged', but as the system is such that I have to rely on the copyright claimant agreeing with my challenge in order for that video of mine being 'released' from their supposed copyright 'claim' I am currently unable to publicly say any more about that particular 'claim'. I LOVE the intent behind the RU-vid algorithms/bots in trying to have some ad revenue passed on to the copyright holders of music copyright however the system of claims and counter claims is in dire need of significant improvement. Namely the process of 'recourse' against claims (including fraudulent ones), as currently all the power is with the copyright claimant with no further ability to challenge/change claims by the vast majority of RU-vid creators within the RU-vid system (unless you are already a large RU-vid Channel who has been categorised as 'trusted' by RU-vid itself). There are also downright incorrect claims such as the one featured and discussed in this video. My sympathies about it, and while I've only just discovered your channel your content seems great and I but thank you for it!! 🙏 Wishes from Melbourne, Australia
Dude, what really pisses me off about this is the fact that you don't need to have musical knowledge to comprehend that part isn't Dark Horse, you just have to pay attention to the video.
no way someone can be this stupid... right? I was hoping that maybe youtube's shitty algorithm picked it up and told warner about it and they just listened to the clip without actually watching the video and said "yeah thats dark horse alright!".
@@0Clewi0 but that doesn't justify it. The moment you mention that you are playing someone's else a music, fair use allows you to play it for a few seconds. No justification needed. So the fact that they are mentioned in the title and the extract is only a couple seconds long, is enough not to claim it.
@@tonymouannes but the person is just doing the job requested to them to do, of course the company is acting like an industrial fishing boat that uses double nets to catch fish smaller than it's allowed, I'm not depending them. It's like blaming the barista for coffee being hugely unethical.
Deoxal so you trust the light industry to not rig their lamps to break early? Or your phone company not to change charger just to force you to pay more? Or your pharmasutical company not to get you hooked on their drug? Or your aircraft manifacturer not to skip tests? All of these are services you pay for, all of these are examples of how coorporations screw you over to make an extra dollar, in some of the cases even literally kill people to get that cash. Fortunatley the government steps in sometimes, but this is not a bug in the coorporation, it is the desired feature: profit above all else.
Come on charmillion I know your not that stupid. Use fire punch. Chamillionaire hurt itself in it's confusion. Charmillion has fainted. O come on throws Gameboy 😒.
I don't think companies face any consequences for a wrongful claim of "copyright". They can just attack anybody and get away with it. Best case - they get some money, worst case - nothing changes.
There used to be US laws about "copyright misuse" and penalties for false millenium copyright strikes. But enforcement is severely lacking, with the deviant RU-vid system further dilutes the law.
John Crower Doe Not to mention these massive corporations have massive legal teams on payroll already. They're literally losing money if they're not actively suing people.
You CAN take a copyright claim up to the courts and sue the company, but the majority of people don't have money to throw around on lawsuits let alone the time and patience to deal with the hassle of setting up a lawsuit. That's the only reason companies can just false claim YTers and not get in trouble for it. Even if the drop the claim later, it doesn't matter since they still get your ad money up until that point. YT or the courts definitely need to set up a system to make the claimants not get any of the revenue while the claim is being challenged and to make the companies pay back said revenue if they drop the claim.
Since the change in copyright claims and Twitch streamer strikes for copyrighted music I haven't purchased any commercial music but I have discovered so many great royalty free and independent musicians. I think music companies keep on shooting themselves in the bottom line every time they limit exposure of music to new and existing people. Subbed and Liked Feed to Algorithm.
Back in April, I posted a video where I set up my drumset left-handed and played it for the very first time. I got a copyright claim; I initially assumed it was for the drumless track I used (because sometimes copyright free actually isn't). But when I clicked on the copyright claim, it was actually from (surprise, surprise) Warner Music Group, claiming that I'd used their copyrighted content - which they said was "The Jam" by Graham Central Station, which also appears **nowhere** in the video. I looked more carefully; they claimed that the portion in dispute runs at a point in the video where the only audio is me (and ONLY me) taking my fumbling first steps at playing left-handed. It's just a drum beat. Played by me. Left-handed. And not well. And not at all similar to the beat played in "The Jam". What an absolute load of [BASS]. And shame on RU-vid for playing along 100%.
I do "pirate" everything that's for my personal use and I don't give a damn about it really, the big "production" companies can sux my ass for being what they are. The only times I kind of try to pay back is when there's a unique idea by some honest individuals and that mostly happens in the form of an open source app/service; not anything off of netflix or spotify may I say. Oh and I block ads(&anti adblockers) and trackers wherever and whenever I can and it works really well.
Jlsajfj They... They actually do. They won a lot of lawsuits, for example Katy Perry’s song and Mumbo Jumbo’s intro. But who cares they already removed the copyright claim
They are actionable, but the legal maneuver is expensive for a lot of people. A quick-counter-claims court to deal with these things, now with so many low-resource artists and creators, should be available to contest frivolous copyright claims.
@@gedalyahreback2133 Then these corp fuks will push the lawsuit all the way to supreme court, the whole time both sides pay to be there and the loser pays everyone back
The irony is too much to handle. Lol 😂 “that’s our melody!!.. uh no, that’s joyful noise... Oh yeah, we meant that our melody is totally different.” Sucks that RU-vidrs have so little recourse.
@@monamuller8969 they know they can get away with it. warner chapel and other music copyright holders pump big money into yt to defend their copyrights, which in turn rigs the scales toward the copyright claimers rather than the content creators, who has hard time even getting someone from yt to review the claim. and even if a claim is found to be baseless the ad money for that time when it was claimed is already in the claimers pocket.
@@simplig1272 They don´t have to return the money they falsely claimed? So in other words they make money in claiming copyrights. Doesn´t matter if the song was really in the video. 😐
Imagine the same set of principles applied to woodworking. Patent Office: "I'm sorry sir, you cannot saw notches into a board, apply glue, then clamps on two pieces of wood to form a 90 degree angle. This technique is patented."
@@domninin Actually - that's NOT how patents work. I have five patents, I understand the process. If there is "prior art" in the area you cannot patent the prior art. You have to prove how what you're doing is different than the prior art, or how what you're doing changes or improves the prior art and then you can patent the "new" (novel) technology improvements - you just can't claim the prior art portion. In the case of gluing boards together to make a 90-degree joint, there is demonstrated prior art in that field going back thousands of years - patent application denied.
@@domninin I understand, but they don't apply to any hand-made items that I can think of. Yes, you can patent a particular look design of a chair, but you cannot patent the joinery of a chair. Dovetails are not patentable. I put forward that certain parts of music should also not be patentable.
Dominik T copyright does expire some 100 years+- after it’s created/author died. See free distribution of every Shakespeare play. Basically anything published before 1924 is public domain now.
@@buckhorncortez well the same applies to copyright too. You can't copyright an instrument or a specific sound or a Melody that existed before, but you can copyright new melodies
They should be a penalty for false strikes. Also that employee who did the manual strike should be penalized EDIT: While I have everyone's Attention: I think RU-vidrs should have a collective moment of silence with a shared hashtag to bring attention to this gross abuse of the system. A few seconds each video.
People make mistakes. If you want to single out the employee as the culprit, you're opening the door to their (proven antisocial) company to fire them and try to get credit for having dealt with the issue so promptly and drastically. Therefore, this should be entirely on the company as a whole and its policies being all kinds of wrong, regardless which of their representatives filed the claim.
@@Co19801003 I would agree with you except it is very clear they did not watch the entire video for the context. If they did a proper investigation they wouldn't have the same faulty outcome
@@Co19801003 people make mistakes but this looks like carelessness/lack of training. I'm not a professional and i could instantly tell that it wasn't dark horse. if it's their job they shouldn't make mistakes like this especially on this video where its relevant to a court case, it should've been handled with more care i believe x
@@Co19801003 Well, the legal penalty (which should definitely exist !!!) should be for the corporation no doubt and shouldn't be concerned with the employee... but the corporation should probably penalize the employee (I'm not used to defending corporations... this feels weird) since given the history exposed by Adam, the legal team was aware and supportive of the video, so the decision to *manually* claim on this video (for Joyful Noise 9 s part of the background...) had to be a stupid mistake. Now if the guy was new he may not deserve to be fired, but he should definitely be told never to make such a frivolous claim again.
This is the same company that claimed every single one of Mumbo Jumbo's videos for like a 1 second clip of a non copyrighted song because the creator of the non copyrighted song used a fraction of a second long noise thats from another copyrighted song even know it's literally unnoticeable to the ear
For the "melody" that you played, I instantly thought of the Art Of Noise song, Moments In Love, from 1986. The notes are different, but the "melody" is the same, to my unprofessional music ears.
This kinda reminds me of the time my dad pulled over to help someone who was just hit by a car and when the victim was asked to identify the car that hit him, he pointed to my dad’s car
Hopefully your dad's car didn't coincidentally have damage on it that matched the other car's damage, so it should have been clear to the legal folks that it couldn't have been your dad.
capitalism is the answer to all our problems, let us pray for the free market and its omniscient benevolence. For it is almighty and good and powerful, it shall save us all. Brothers, let us pray
